Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2009

McLaughlin v. Canada (Attorney General)

2009 FCA 279
GeneralJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

McLaughlin v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-09-29 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 279 File numbers A-43-09 Decision Content Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20090929 Docket: A-43-09 Citation: 2009 FCA 279 Present: NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: ROBERT McLAUGHLIN Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 29, 2009. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20090929 Docket: A-43-09 Citation: 2009 FCA 279 Present: NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: ROBERT McLAUGHLIN Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER NOËL J.A. [1] The applicant brings a motion for an order holding the Attorney General in contempt of Court for refusing to answer cross-examination questions in relation to its affidavit. The premise upon which the application is brought is that the Attorney General was bound to answer the questions in issue. [2] The respondent contends that the cross-examination questions go beyond the scope of the affidavit and are not relevant to the determination of the issue with respect to which it was filed. As such, the respondent takes the position that it had no obligation to answer them. [3] To the extent that the applicant was of the view that the questions were relevant, it was incumbent upon him to bring a motion to compel the respondent to answer th…

Read full judgment
McLaughlin v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2009-09-29
Neutral citation
2009 FCA 279
File numbers
A-43-09
Decision Content
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20090929
Docket: A-43-09
Citation: 2009 FCA 279
Present: NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 29, 2009.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A.
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20090929
Docket: A-43-09
Citation: 2009 FCA 279
Present: NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NOËL J.A.
[1] The applicant brings a motion for an order holding the Attorney General in contempt of Court for refusing to answer cross-examination questions in relation to its affidavit. The premise upon which the application is brought is that the Attorney General was bound to answer the questions in issue.
[2] The respondent contends that the cross-examination questions go beyond the scope of the affidavit and are not relevant to the determination of the issue with respect to which it was filed. As such, the respondent takes the position that it had no obligation to answer them.
[3] To the extent that the applicant was of the view that the questions were relevant, it was incumbent upon him to bring a motion to compel the respondent to answer them. It is only after obtaining such an order and upon showing that the respondent was non-compliant with that order that the applicant would have grounds to seek an order for contempt under Rule 467.
[4] The application is dismissed with costs.
“Marc Noël”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-43-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROBERT McLAUGHLIN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Noël J.A.
DATED: September 29, 2009
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Robert McLaughlin
SELF-REPRESENTED
Bahaa Sunallah
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases